Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 08:12:19 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 09:47:23, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On September 25, 2004 at 03:57:30, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 25, 2004 at 01:56:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On September 24, 2004 at 13:05:52, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On September 24, 2004 at 12:09:00, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 23, 2004 at 13:31:55, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 23, 2004 at 01:44:08, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 23, 2004 at 01:31:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On September 22, 2004 at 06:58:33, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On September 22, 2004 at 05:56:02, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is not a benefit for a weak engine as it will also probably play weak moves >>>>>>>>>>in the middlegame which will be properly exploited by the stronger engine. Dont >>>>>>>>>>u think so. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>it's not the issue whether a strong engine will beat a weak engine. that is so >>>>>>>>>by definition :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>the question is: take 2 engines of approximately equal playing strength, give >>>>>>>>>one of them a good book, and look what happens in a match. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>i believe that for 2 weak engines the difference will be larger in the match >>>>>>>>>result than for 2 strong engines. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>now we only need somebody to test this hypothesis :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>cheers >>>>>>>>> martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I made very many tests and I can make statements on this matter: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. A program stronger 150 points than another will win nearly all games no >>>>>>>>matter how bad it comes out from the openings. >>>>>>>>2. The stronger the program is the most important the book is. Of course weak >>>>>>>>lines should be checked and removed to avoid loosing positions. >>>>>>>>3. The weaker the program is the less the book is important. The reason is that >>>>>>>>it will find very many positions where it does not know how to play them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>P.N. Do not take the Shredder - Hydra example to state the opposite, because I >>>>>>>>knew we had some weak lines in the book, but for personal reasons could not work >>>>>>>>on them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course anybody can state the opposite, but my statements are supported by >>>>>>>>thousand of games and more than 100 engines/prototype testing at all level and >>>>>>>>with very many different harware. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have no time and williness to do deeper into these matters, so it is up to you >>>>>>>>to believe me or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sandro >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At the very weak level books are not important because the program that get >>>>>>>better position cannot use it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At the very high level books are also not important because the program can find >>>>>>>better moves by itself. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, this is today totally wrong in at least 95% cases. >>>>>> >>>>>>It depends on the positions, but in some positions they should search at 64/108 >>>>>>to be able to do it and I do not think any chess program is able to reach those >>>>>>depths now. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have made several tests running fast harware for more than one day and the >>>>>>moves and the evaluation they got was poor compared to real ones. >>>>> >>>>>Depends on what "real ones" means. Humans also make mistakes. >>>> >>>>Yes, but I was referring to deep analysis of a position, not games. Some times >>>>deep analysis takes days, months or even longer...otherwise is not deep...:-) >>> >>>An example: >>> >>>after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 can computers answer >>>these questions: >>> >>>1. Is this the best line for white? >> >>I guess that humans cannot answer better. > >They do...ECO volums are about 80% reliable. Even if there is still a lot of >room for improvements this does not mean that the computers will improve theory. > >Just consider what follows: > >1. Current theory is based on more than 100 years games played by many strong >players also at corrispondance chess too. >2. Top engines do not have more chess knowledge of GMs and they do not see >deeper. A program looking at 18/44 see 9 full moves as average, 22 on the best >line and maybe 4-5 on some lines which are cut early. This is not much compared >to deep analysis by GMs. > >If the programs cannot use the knowledge made by strong players they need to see >quite deeper that they can. Of course there are positions where they look ahead >is already enough and on these they are dangerous players, but these are mostly >tactical ones or where material gain is an important factor. > >Positions where a positional compensation for given material is important are >not handled well unless the look ahead can see how to get back material and or a >mate. > >Of course weak reply can make weak moves very strong, but it depends who is the >opponent... > >> >>>2. Is 2...d6 best move for black? >> >>Again I guess that humans cannot answer. > >They gave a 80% reliable answer...the future will see this percentage raise more >and more... > >>Probably 2...d6 is one of some drawing moves but I cannot be sure about it. >> >>>3. Is this line best line for black? >>>4. What is white best move at move 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, >>>18, 19 and 20? >>>5. What are the best reply for black on those moves and the white best line? >>>6. How deep should a chess program need to search to give these answers? >>> >>>Uri, do you really think a chess program can give better answers (moves) than a >>>strong human player? >> >>I do not know. >>I think that in most cases they will give moves with the same quality. >>In some cases espacially in moves 11-20 they may give better moves if you give >>them a long time to analyze. > >My very many tests show that this is happening very seldom. The big question is if the engine's moves are really worse, or just different. Vas >> >>Uri > >Sandro
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.